Scary stuff.

Yeah it is. Sounds way too familiar.

Throw in some mention of terrorism and you could trade Goering's face for GDub's.

Going on the 4th year now, folks... :S

Not just scary, remarkably telling.

Do you remember when I first posted that quote about a year and a half ago? Sans nice graphics though.

What worked for hitler, worked for bush/cheney.

"all you have to do is tell tehm they are being attacked, and to denounce the pacifists for lack of partiotism and exposing the country to danger."

You know that passage is underlyed in bright yellow on a very dog-earred page of the bush/cheney playbook.

Stinkification! :) that's a dangerous proposition in West Virginny, aint it?

^^ Remember the teacher who got sued for expressing his political opinions in class (which included drawing a faint line between Dubya and Hitler)?
You're a teacher, too...
You're out of the classroom...
This is your chance, man! Let it all out! Come on, I know you have more to say than that ^^ wimpy stuff!

Don't take that very last sentence completely seriously...

Last edited: Monday, March 20, 2006 at 9:56:28 PM

I'm in a meeting right now... So I didn't have much time.

What about you, missy? Where's you're commentary? You know you have one... ;)

For now, let me say that if I taught High School, I'd likely be using some of the legal advice that comes with my union dues... And rattling the cages...

My commentary on the Dubya/Hitler quote connection:

Captain Obvious strikes again!

Tell me you didn't know this before.

Lesson 1: It's called manipulation. Most people don't like it, but almost always don't recognize it until too late.
Lesson 2: Don't be fooled. If you weren't prepared for this test, be prepared for the next one.
Lesson 3: All the advertising techniques you were taught for consumer education in school apply to politics, too. Don't let sentimentality reel you in.
Lesson 4: You know you're in an autocracy when dissent is banned. This is a direct quote from Bush:

(in a wounded tone)

(No emphasis was actually put on "my," I just want you to notice it.)

What happened to government "of the people, by the people, for the people"?

Lesson 5: Research things for yourself. Don't believe the things politicians say unless history confirms them.
Lesson 6: Join the protests. They're the civil rights marches of today.
Lesson 7: Don't try to rationalize stupid things you've done. It makes you look even more stupid. Apologize and don't do it again.
Lesson 8: Impeachment is only for minor crimes. Major ones deserve praise and honor for "great leadership."
I might think of more lessons later.

If the quote is true, then the "common people" will have no say no matter how many lessons are learned. Money will always be the true ruler.

Not bad, Monica! I hope more are out there like you. The young need to take up the struggle once again.

Remember a couple of things. Power corrupts. If you don't believe it, look at the study of power, or political science. Many important lessons are available in there. The biggest are probably (IMO)

Power corrupts, so beware those who have it, or may get it
Question authority. Then do it more.
No one is perfect, but attempting to become it is not a bad idea.
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

(The order of this list is meaningless, as it reflects the current state of mind of the writer, not the importance of the ideas in the list.)

I might just print off this whole thread and use it as my bible!

@stink - I vaguely remember someone posting that. I also vaguely remember my reaction, thinking the poster was making an extreme claim to make a point and that it didn't really fit the situation. Now I'm not so sure. Interesting the difference a year can make.

And why am I remembering this quote? "Join me and we will rule the galaxy together as father and son!"

Hey Rabban!

I'm thinking of starting my own tread "The Hillbilling of Fleabiscuit" :)

You know that I'm a Lefty Democrat, but... I'm saving up to become a Republican!
A Rebublican, you know, those who claim that the American worker is America's most valuable possession, but pray it never comes to that.

Hahahaha

I've heard that Stinky goes to weekly evil lessons with the Devil.

I have no idea what the Stinkster charges him. Hahahahaha

I had to pass those along even if I did steal them. (One step at a time to become a big "R") :)

Just dont question authority at school.

Hello? Anybody home? Remeber our military is an all VOLUNTEER force? Congress ok'd our going to "war". Who's being dragged anywhere? And why are a huge percentage of troops reinlisting their time for Iraq and Afgannistan?

Sorry Rabban, I find your comparrison very weak. Are you actually going to use a quote from Hermann Goering during the trials. He was scared to death and saying anything to keep his but from hanging. The coward killed himself with cyanide before the trials were even over. We agreed to go into Iraq because the whole western world, democrats and republicans believed that Saddam had WMD. How quickly we forget. Typical liberal mumbo jumbo to switch the story around for short sighted gains. The fact still remains that he probably did have them and what did he do with them.

Are any of you old enough to remember what Saddam did to the Kurds during the Iran/Iraq war? He used mustard gas on his own people of northern Iraq. Do you think he used it all? Do you actually believe that he got rid of it in the 90's after the first Gulf war?

;)

Last edited: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 4:04:14 AM

Selective outrage ^

Well, I was typing an intelligent response to that tired bit of weak ass mad-radio reasoning, but then I figured, "why bother?"

Let me just ask you if you are old enough to have figured out that most if not all of saddam's chemical and biological weaponry technology actually came from the US in the 80s when sadam was our pal?

And let me ask you if you are observant enough to have noticed that far more Iraqis have been killed in "collateral damage" than saddam ever got around to killing himself?

And let me also ask you if your outrage about the senseless loss of lives is confined to the kurds or if you are similarly outraged by the loss of life in darfur? And if so, are you outraged by this administrations inactions in this matter?

Consider these rhetorical question. You needn't bother hen-pecking a stupid response.

@KKB - I don't think you're reading the quote with the proper mindset. If you follow the link that validates the quote (click on the image), you'd find this.

So basically Goering was just talking to Gilbert and making some observations. He's talking about how governments get their public to follow. That fact that he's a Nazi should only validate his point. The Nazis were able to lead their country into WWII and murder millions of Jews in the process. Do you think the average German wanted that? I'd say no, at least in the beginning. But over time they believed in Hilter's cause and supported him. Hilter was elected you know.

And I don't think we're switching the story around. I'm aware of every point you made and I agree with them (even argued them myself). I recently read that Saddam's top guys even thought they had WMD and were disappointed to find out days before the war that they didn't. It was all part of Saddam's reign of paranoia and micromanagement in order to keep himself alive and in power. So if Saddam had everyone in HIS government thinking he had WMD, shouldn't we have as well? (Though I guess Hans was right.) Now the fact that our military is all voluntary doesn't make any difference whatsoever, they're just following orders and those who re-up believe in the cause. That's fine too.

Goering's point is that the leadership of any country and convince the people to go to war and this is how you do it. That doesn't mean Bush lied, but it may mean he's using the formula. It may mean he may have been a little too anxious to go to war after all since he may have had some additional, strategic reasons for doing so that had little to do with the war on terror.

Believe me, I'm also very aware that 20/20 hindsight is in play as well, but we still need to review what happened to make sure it doesn't happen again and with Iran becoming a situation, I don't think its going to hurt to scrutinize our administration's actions just a little closer. That's sorta our job, isn't it?

Last edited: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 2:09:32 PM

Hitler stole the election through physical intimidation. I need to re-read my history on Hilter, but by no means was he truly elected into power.

I can agree with your arguments about questioning our leadership which is very healthy in America.

Stink, put down that grass man before you burn your fingers. I have no idea how you come up with more collateral deaths than by Hussein himself.

And, yes I am intelligent enough to know that we may have given Iraq some chemical know how or was it the French? France has been riding Iraq's donkey longer than the US. Maybe the USSR? Hell, they gave arms to both Iran and Iraq.

Maybe...you could give us a link that shows the total number of deaths from the war in Iraq...and another that shows the estimated number of people that Saddam killed. And no, not from Fox News either.

Oh, and Bush also stole the 2000 election. People seem to have forgotten that. The people clamoring to stop the recount were workers and lobbyists for the REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Sure, blame everything on the French. We gave Iraq that "chemical know how" ourselves. Don't try to pour a load of sugar on it.

A tyrant is only a tyrant when he's your enemy.

@KKB

Hitler was elected freely and fairly according to all of the books that I've read. There may have been some intimidation involved but that was no different than what was happening in the US at the time. From the point of view of the German people at the beginning he was wonderful. He rebuilt Germany from the destruction of WWI and the Great Depression. He inspired and motivated the people to build up a massive industrial power in very few years. He made the average persons life in Germany much, much better and they repaid him with their loyalty. Yes there were dissenters, (there always is) but the majority of the population supported him fully. So when he convinced them that it was their destiny to rule millions followed his lead.

On the subject of Iraq, I do not know the exact count but I imagine that the UN (US mostly) has killed more Iraqis than Hussein did. We killed an estimated 25,000-100,000 in Desert Storm, and as of Oct 2004 over 98,000 civilians killed in the current war with 30,000 solders dead. (Wiki) These studies do not take into account all of the deaths caused by the anarchy after the US toppled the government.

Really good way to fight a war on terrorism, kill a lot of peoples families. They won't have any reason to be suicide bombers after that.

The one wonderful thing I keep seeing on here is everyone arguing about WHY it happened.. Frankly people DOES it MATTER? The whole WMD arguement is mute.. So are all the other arguements. I think if you spent more time trying to suggest alternative solutions it would be a much better debate.. Remember it is MUCH easier to criticize than to produce a well thought out SOLUTION to the problem... Lets try that in here shall we.. I think you will find it is much easier said than done!

@doc Basically at this point we are Bush Bashing. I.e. A relief af stress over genuine concerns caused by excessive stupidity in the oval office.

In my opinion there is only one pressing debate for Iraq.

Do we:

A. Pull out and let the country go to anarchy with thousands of civilian deaths.

B. Stay and continue to try to stabalize the country while loosing thousands of solders.

Add to option B: "stay and continue to stabalize the country while loosing thousands of soldiers and many more thousand civilian lives."

Doc: it's a lose/lose scenario, aint it?

I think that is an accurate assessment.. It is lose lose.. Now which provides the least loss of lives in the future? Since we can agree either method A pulling out (which would cause massive Iraqi lives in a probable civil war) or method B (which will cause loss of both soldiers and innocent civilians) which method in the long run will offer more stability to the region?

On long term stability...i've actually heard talk, some of it from our own generals, that our presence there is in-and-of itself a destabilizing factor. If we were to pull out, perhaps it would lead to stability...eventually. And likely after MUCH bloodshed and or civil war.

Of course, it that situation, we'd have to hope that our favorites prevailed. Stability won't likely matter much to the WH if it comes at the price of losing control/influence over the iraqi government, say, if an unsympathetic government ended up being in power...like Hamas in palestine

So maybe stability isn't the end we are looking for exactly. Which complicates the question.

Last edited: Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 7:16:16 PM

@ doc - Honestly, reinstating Saddam. If the reasons we went to war have now been shown to have been incorrect, whatever right we thought we had to go in is kinda gone now. So sorry about killing your boys and making you walk around in your underware, but here's a few billion in aid to help you rebuild. Now go reinstall stability the old fashioned way, the way you know best Saddam. Just watch it, OK? As a matter of fact, let us build some bases and we'll help you with those pesky Iranians. Word is they've got WMD...

! Stinkification near completion! Watch out world!

Sounds familiar...

:P

Smells like hope in here.

Rabban and V. Hitler gained power through a coalition government with Hindenburgh. When Hindenburgh died shortly after the election Hitler gained power. One of the first things he did as Chancelor of Germany was make himself absolute ruler in 1933. The rest is history.

I agree that Iraq is a mess and we could lose either way, but we owe it to the Iraqi people at this point for a better shot at life. We at least have to try.

Does anyone know how much oil we imported from Iraq yearly before the 1st Persian Gulf war?